Oh no... abortion! (General Discussion)

[KC Carter]

(06-17-2010 11:33 AM)Proofforacreator Wrote:  There is only one question when talking about abortion. "What is the unborn?" If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification is necessary. If the unborn are human beings, then no justification is adequate.

No, the only question that should be asked when talking about legal abortion is "what is the alternative?"

Abortion as been practiced since the dawn of humanity, it isn't some peculiar phenomena that has developed since the some Western countries legalised it. Women have always had abortions, and will always want abortions.

The state of play as we have it now is that women can get abortions done by health care professionals. It isn't a quick fix, women agonise over the decision to abort, that it's an alternative to contraception to some people is a myth.

So what would happen if it was made illegal again? Women will still agonise over the decision to abort, but instead of going to a trained professional they will go back to the old methods, using a stick or a coat hanger on themselves. Or if they have the money they'll go to some back-alley abortionist.
Sure there will be fewer abortions, but infanticide will increase, as will the number of kids in orphanages and foster care.

So there you have it, you have a choice between keeping abortion legal and dealing with the fact that foetuses will be killed. Or you can make it illegal again and have women killing and maiming themselves trying home abortions, more children getting abandoned and killed after birth and a massive rise in the population of unloved children.

So, should abortion remain legal?

[Clementine]

(06-17-2010 11:33 AM)Proofforacreator Wrote:  Sorry I'm late to this discussion. Excuse me if this has been said before.

There is only one question when talking about abortion. "What is the unborn?" If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification is necessary. If the unborn are human beings, then no justification is adequate.

Then I think we have to define when it becomes human to satisfy you.

And how can no justification be adequate? That's like saying killing one to save a hundred is unjustifiable, which is the basis of the Christian religion, on a much bigger scale.

[The Word]

(02-17-2009 08:01 PM)Annolennar Wrote:  I hesitate to post this, because its a point of contention that will probably lead to somebody getting flamed at some point if the thread persists, but I maintain the hope that it can be discussed philosophically. Let me set out at the beginning that I believe this issue can and should be considered independently of religious or political affiliation.

To get the ball rolling (don't feel like you have to respond to this, its just a place to start), I'll share some thoughts I was having earlier today. However, this thread is intended for general discussion of the topic, and doesn't necessarily need to be confined to discussion of the points in the OP.

-

Stemming from a discussion on Lockean individual and natural rights, it came up that generally people in Western thought tend to frame their arguments from a Lockean perspective. This holds true for the topic of abortion - the pro-choice crowd tends to rally behind the right to bodily self-determination, while the pro-life crowd tends to rally behind the right to life. Now while there does seem to be some agreement between the two sides that there is some sort of "right" at stake, there also seems to be a bit of a fundamental disconnect in how both sides approach the issue.

So, I'm going to take a bit of a pro-life route and address the question of whether abortion in and of itself is morally acceptable, rather than the question of whether we as a society have the prerogative to enforce a particular policy regarding it.

If we assume that both rights at stake are valid and fundamental - that people have both a right to life and a right to self-determination - then as I was considering it earlier, the pro-life position seems in general to be a more equitable position. Where as the pro-choice side generally seems to claim the right to self-determination on the basis that a fetus has no right to life in the first place, the pro-life position generally acknowledges both rights - accepting a person's right to self-determination, but holding that it ceases to apply at the point where it would violate someone's even more fundamental right to live.

Of course, there's also the related point that a right to choice can't exist without first living, so by denying a child's right to live, one is also denying the existence of a child's right to choice in favor of the simple exercise of a mother's right to choice.

Now, I also recognize the position that a fetus has no inherent rights, however accepting that necessitates accepting several unpleasant but related positions. If we deny the right to life to a fetus on the grounds that biographical life, not biological life alone, has natural rights, then we are left with the problem of similar situations. Now, I'm not talking about those who are permanently brain dead but biologically alive, but rather people such as coma patients, who currently lack biographical life but have the potential and indeed probability of eventually becoming functional human beings at some point in the future (as a fetus does). The unpleasant assertion here is, if we determine that it is acceptable to terminate a fetus, then it is necessary to also accept the termination of a coma patient who would probably otherwise recover, as well as others in similar vulnerable positions.

So, even in the absence of an accepted common moral authority, we are left with the choice of choosing a culture and set of inalienable rights that are inherently inclined toward either life or death.

-

Just random thoughts; by no means an exhaustive argument. Please, share your own thoughts, and don't forget to vote in the poll!

Any sinner who writes about abortion these days is looking for attention. This idea has been going strong ever since I was young and no one understands the truth. The truth is, that everyone dies in this age no matter how old you are. This is an age of deception so God can judge those who obey his spoken Word. By making everyone liars, his chosen ones could hear the truth and respond in obedience to this truth.

Everyone else is busy with their sinfulness by killing Muslims, babies, criminals, wives, parents, husbands, children, teachers, doctors, etc. They're also busy making money with their greed, raping children and women with their lust, using drugs, food, tobacco, etc, with their addiction sin of gluttony, collecting welfare and preaching a false gospel with their sin of laziness, lying their way to the top with their sins of jealousy and envy, and the list goes on and on and on of other sinful behavior that the world is involved in.

So what if a few babies are aborted when no one can change they way they are. This is why God commanded sinners not to judge each other.

[kevlar]

Your meds wordy, don't forget your meds

[The Word]

(08-28-2010 09:25 AM)kevlar Wrote:  Your meds wordy, don't forget your meds

Everyone who faces the truth ends up speaking few words of nothing but idiocy.

[kevlar]

Oh don't sell yourself short wordy, you've spoken copious words of nothing but idiocy.

[The Word]

(08-28-2010 09:52 AM)kevlar Wrote:  Oh don't sell yourself short wordy, you've spoken copious words of nothing but idiocy.

Everyone who faces the truth gets messed up when they challenge him. All you need to do is obey him and he'll take away those sins that mess you up.

[kevlar]

It obviously hasn't worked for you wordy, your not just messed up you are the definition of PERMANENTLY BEWILDERED.

[The Word]

(08-28-2010 10:28 AM)kevlar Wrote:  It obviously hasn't worked for you wordy, your not just messed up you are the definition of PERMANENTLY BEWILDERED.

Avoiding the truth is something that happens when a sinner is faced with the truth. Liars hate the truth.

[kevlar]

yes you've made that abundantly clear by your refusal to answer any question, wordy.